- (1.) This judgment would dispose of CWP Nos. 9037, 12234 and 1395 of 2005, as the common questions to be interpreted and decided are involved though the facts relating to the service of the respective petitioners are at some variance, which would not affect the resultant decision rendered accordingly.
(2.) In the first instance, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 9037 of 2005. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Divisional Engineer by direct recruitment in the year 1970. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 1979 and thereafter earned promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer in May 1998. From the perusal of the documents appended with the petition the seniority position inter se the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 emerged as under :- JUDGEMENT_188_LAWS(P&H)1_2006.htm
(3.) It may be noticed here that respondent No. 3 Shri N.K. Aggarwal, had filed CWP No. 6724 of 2002, claiming higher seniority and that the said petition is pending in this Court as yet. For the purpose of filling vacancies of Chief Engineers in the Public Works Department (Building and Roads) Branch, separate Departmental Promotion Committees were constituted for considering the eligible candidates for filling the reserved vacancy and the vacancy in the general category. Shri J.P. Chander, having been shown at Seniority No. 14 was considered against the general as well as reserved category vacancy but was not found suitable as he did not meet the bench mark of 15 marks. It may be noticed that the aforestated bench mark was required to be determined as per the instructions dated December 29, 2000, issued by the government of Punjab, which had been subsequently modified/updated by virtue of the instructions dated September 6, 2001, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. One Shri Amritpal Singh i.e. petitioner in CWP No. 1395 of 2005, had been recommended for promotion as he had been graded as "very good" by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the DPC"). However, against the general category vacancy one Shri D.S. Sekhon, was found suitable and was recommended by the DPC, pursuant thereto he was promoted as Chief Engineer on February 5, 2003. Respondent No. 2 Shri J.P. Chander, was not found suitable despite the fact that he ranked senior to Shri D.S. Sekhon. It may be noticed that Shri D.S. Sekhon has retired on June 30, 2004. It has been averred that respondent No. 2-Shri J.P. Chander, had been awarded remarks as "very good" in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2000-01. For the year 2001-02, he had been awarded the remarks as "Good". Respondent No. 2 represented to the government for upgradation of his Annual Confidential Reports for the aforestated years from "very good" to "Outstanding". As per the averment of the petitioner, the remarks of respondent No. 2 for the aforestated Annual Confidential Reports have been upgraded to "Outstanding" for both the years. Thus, in view of this, respondent No. 2 would be taken to have acquired the bench mark of 15 marks pursuant to the aforestated government instructions. In view of the above, the respondent-State directed that a Review Departmental Promotion Committee be held and that the promotion of Shri Amrit Pal Singh, recommended by the DPC in its proceeding dated November 25, 2002, be reviewed in view of the changed Annual Confidential Report of respondent No. 2-Shri J.P. Chander. Consequently, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted to be held on December 21, 2004 but for the reasons best known to the government, the same was postponed/deferred. This action of the government has been challenged by Shri Amritpal Singh, Chief Engineer in CWP No. 1395 of 2005 (which is being decided along with the present petition). It may also be noticed that while issuing notice of motion in the aforestated case, the reversion of Shri Amritpal Singh from the post of Chief Engineer has been stayed vide order dated January 25, 2005. The stand of the government in the aforestated petition filed by Shri Amritpal Singh is against the vacancy reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste, Shri Amritpal Singh had been promoted as Chief Engineer by superseding Shri J.P. Chander, by taking into consideration the overall assessment awarded to him by the concerned Administrative Secretary during the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 wherein his overall assessment for three years was downgraded from "Outstanding" to "Good" without recording any reasons in this regard. Shri J.P. Chander had represented against the aforestated and that after taking the advice of the Department of Personnel, it had been decided that the overall assessment as recorded by the two Reporting Officers i.e. the Chief Engineers, based on field data and highlighted in the Annual Confidential Reports of these years having been taken into account, the gradation of "Outstanding" awarded to him by the Chief Engineers shall be considered as compared to the overall assessment "Good" taken into account by the DPC held on December 30, 2003. It is for this reason the Review Departmental Promotion Committee had been convened. The extract of the relevant paras i.e. Para Nos. 3, and 7 to 10, from the written statement filed by the Government in CWP No. 1395 of 2005, is as under :- Against the other vacancy reserved for members of Scheduled Castes, the petitioner was promoted as Chief Engineer superseding respondent No. 2 on account of the fact that the DPC took into consideration the overall assessment awarded to him by the concerned Administrative Secretary during the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, wherein his overall assessment for three years was downgraded from "Outstanding" to "Good" without recording any reasoning for doing so. The respondent No. 2 represented against downgrading his assessment by the concerned Administrative Secretary and after taking the advice of the Department of Personnel, it has been decided that the overall assessment as recorded by the two Reporting Officers i.e. two Chief Engineers based on field data highlighted in the Confidential reports of these years shall be taken into account, which meant that the gradation of "Outstanding" awarded to him by the Chief Engineers shall be considered as compared to the overall assessment "Good" taken into account by the DPC held on 30.12.2003. For these reasons, meeting of the review DPC had been convened, which later on had to be postponed." "That para Nos. 7 to 10, as alleged are denied on account of averments made in para No. 3 supra of written statement. It is reiterated that the DPC took into consideration the overall assessment awarded to him by the concerned Administrative Secretary during the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, wherein his overall assessment for these years was downgraded from "Outstanding" to "very good" and "Good" respectively without recording any reasoning for doing so. The respondent No. 2 represented against downgrading the assessment by the concerned Administrative Secretary and after taking the advice of the Department of Personnel, it has been decided that the overall assessment as recorded by the two Reporting Officers i.e. two Chief Engineers based on field data highlighted in the Confidential reports for these years shall be taken into account, which meant that the gradation of "Outstanding" awarded to him by the Chief Engineers shall be considered as compared to the overall assessment "Good" taken into account by the DPC held on 30.12.2003. For these reasons, meeting of the review DPC had been convened, which later on had to be postponed.";